Hearing of the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - A National Framework for the Review and Labeling of Biotechnology in Food

Hearing

Today, we will hear a range of views on why there should or should not be mandatory
labeling of foods from genetically engineered or GE plants, and on why states should or should
not be allowed to impose such labeling requirements. I am sure we will hear compelling
arguments today on each side of the issue.

I have long been a proponent of strong food labeling requirements. I was an original
cosponsor of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, was a strong advocate for the
ACA provision requiring nutrition labeling on menus, and sponsored legislation last year, which
I will be reintroducing, to update and strengthen current FDA nutrition labeling requirements.

And I have strongly opposed any attempts to weaken existing labeling requirements, such as the
Common Sense Nutrition Labeling bill, which I believe would impede consumer access to
nutritional information on menus in restaurants, pizza parlors, grocery stores and convenience
stores. So, I am inclined to be skeptical of legislation aimed at limiting rather than enhancing
information on a food label.

At the same time, I recognize that the differences between nutrition labeling and GE
labeling may warrant different regulatory approaches. Nutrition labeling provides information
that enables consumers to make health-related choices in how they eat. There is no question in
my mind that the federal government should require food companies to put that information on
food labels.

GE labeling is about the breeding techniques used to make agricultural crops. Food from
such crops do not share any particular nutritional or health-related properties. A GE label
provides no information on the composition of the food, on whether it is good or bad for you, on
whether it tastes good or bad, or on whether it is safe or unsafe. There is no scientific evidence
that GE foods pose safety issues any different from non-GE foods. I have to admit, when I hear
critics argue that GE foods are dangerous, I feel the same way I do when I hear people deny
climate change, argue against vaccinating children, or say they aren't scientists when asked if
they believe in evolution. So, from a science or health perspective, there doesn't seem to be a
compelling government interest in forcing a food company to label a food as made with or
without genetic engineering.

That being said, if the state of Vermont wants to require food companies to put such
information on their food labels, is there a compelling federal government interest in prohibiting
them from doing so?

Perhaps not. But I do think there is a compelling federal interest in preventing any
labeling that is false or misleading, consistent with current law. If mandatory GE labeling were
inherently misleading, for example because it implied that GE food was somehow inferior to
"normal" food, that would seem to be a compelling reason to prohibit it.

I am so far not convinced that the requirement imposed by Vermont would be inherently
misleading. I will be interested in hearing from our panelists today on that question.
Now, there may be a compelling federal interest in preventing companies from having to
face fifty different food labeling regimes. In fact, it was fear of such an unworkable set of state
food labeling requirements that led food companies and restaurants ultimately to support federal
requirements for nutrition labeling.

To avoid a 50 state problem, there are two obvious solutions. We can ban right to know
labeling requirements outright, or we can replace them with a uniform federal mandatory GE
labeling requirement. While I personally think a voluntary labeling approach is more appropriate
for GE labeling, I also don't believe in preempting state law without good reason.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on this important topic. There are a
number of competing issues to weigh before moving forward on legislation and I hope we will
take our time in considering them.

Source